Most parents in the U.S. have spent the past few days imagining what it would be like to be the mother or father of one of the 20 schoolchildren murdered on Dec. 14 in Connecticut. Each detail that emerges from that stricken community brings many of us to tears. And of course we think, What if a madman came to our child"s school in a rage with a gun?

But there"s another group of parents who watched this horror story unfold with an opposite and perhaps more excruciating thought: What if the madman were my child?

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

Haven't we learned anything from the War on Drugs? The government is stupid. The police is stupid. The entire institution of society is stupid. If individuals want to get past rules, they will always be able to ("demand creates its own supply"). Restricting guns is as oxymoronic and not letting bullied kids get help from teachers. Criminals will be able to get guns if they want to, no matter how strict the laws (with extreme exceptions). The difference is whether you give guns to the law-abiding citizens to defend against these criminals.

"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."

I'm always amazed at how this is such a big issue in the US... it's utterly nonsensical to allow guns to be so easily acquired. Semi-automatic, concealed carry? No police officer gets that in Australia. Heck, they are introducing tasers as a replacement for guns.

Read this article http://www.nytimes.com... ; heck, in 2008 Japan had only 11 people killed by guns vs. about 12,000 in the US. That's a ridiculous degree of difference.

Even accounting for fatalities from other types of weapons, the US is so much higher than many other cultures.

The only real argument I see for the gun supporters is that, in the case of the USA in particular, guns are prevalent, and difficult to buyback. Of course, Australia has very effectively reduced gun violence since the Port Arthur massacre, so it can be done.

Obviously, not creating ridiculous laws allowing guns in the first place is a much smarter - guns don't become prevalent. And no, I don't care that criminals 'can' get their hands on guns. It's rare. Police can stop them. Give a mentally unstable person a semi-automatic and you'll see deaths.

Gun control should have been in place from the start. In lieu of such a law's absence... a long, protracted and painful buyback ought to start.

"Tis not in mortals to command success
But we"ll do more, Sempronius, we"ll deserve it

At 12/17/2012 8:13:24 PM, Lordknukle wrote:Haven't we learned anything from the War on Drugs? The government is stupid. The police is stupid. The entire institution of society is stupid. If individuals want to get past rules, they will always be able to ("demand creates its own supply"). Restricting guns is as oxymoronic and not letting bullied kids get help from teachers. Criminals will be able to get guns if they want to, no matter how strict the laws (with extreme exceptions). The difference is whether you give guns to the law-abiding citizens to defend against these criminals.

How do criminals get guns? Criminals aren't allowed to purchase guns so they get their friends or family to buy guns for them - the ones who aren't criminals. If guns are restricted, then these friends and family won't be able to get guns either restricting the criminals from having them.

Even if law abiding citizens keep guns for self-defense, it is always a possibilty that they can have the gun taken from them and used on them. Criminals are much more experienced in fighting than the average law abiding citizen making this a distinct possibility. The risk of accidents also increase when people (law abiding or otherwise) have guns as they could mistakenly shoot innocent bystanders in an attempt to shoot a criminal.

" And no, I don't care that criminals 'can' get their hands on guns. It's rare."

This statement alone negates all validity to your entire post. It is rare that a "mentally unstable person a semi-automatic" kills at random. Deaths resulting from this situation probably account for less than 3% of people killed by a gun in this nation.

"Police can stop them."Sure they can...lol...show me 5 examples of this that have occurred in the last year, because I can give you 5 of legal gun carrying citizens stopping them in the last year. On average it takes about 10 minutes for police to respond to a 911 call, if a criminal breaks into your house with the intention of raping your children or you do you think that he is going to wait the 10 minutes for the police to get there to stop him. Or better yet, this is America, hurricane Catrina, what are you going to do when you are in your house and there is no power and a gang of 6-10 criminals are coming into your house to do what ever they want.

Here is a better point, what if we change our way of thinking completely, what if it was mandatory for principals and maybe some other key officials in all schools to carry or have access to a weapon? I only know what I have seen the talking head entertainment that they call news in this country, but the principal confronted the shooter when he entered the school, it could have ended there with a completely different outcome that probably would of led to a principals resignation from her job (because someone would have insisted she should not have shot him he was mentally unstable) not life.

Sorry for Hijacking the thread...

"A Government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have" Thomas Jefferson

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

At 12/17/2012 8:13:24 PM, Lordknukle wrote:Haven't we learned anything from the War on Drugs? The government is stupid. The police is stupid. The entire institution of society is stupid. If individuals want to get past rules, they will always be able to ("demand creates its own supply"). Restricting guns is as oxymoronic and not letting bullied kids get help from teachers. Criminals will be able to get guns if they want to, no matter how strict the laws (with extreme exceptions). The difference is whether you give guns to the law-abiding citizens to defend against these criminals.

How do criminals get guns? Criminals aren't allowed to purchase guns so they get their friends or family to buy guns for them - the ones who aren't criminals. If guns are restricted, then these friends and family won't be able to get guns either restricting the criminals from having them.

The criminals who actually matter (not Adam Lanza; his case is virtually one in a billion) are people in gangs and mafia organizations. Gangs, cartels, and mafia organizations have excellent ways to transport illegal stuff across borders, almost to the point that short of stopping all trade, virtually any action the government takes will be ineffective.

Even if law abiding citizens keep guns for self-defense, it is always a possibilty that they can have the gun taken from them and used on them. Criminals are much more experienced in fighting than the average law abiding citizen making this a distinct possibility. The risk of accidents also increase when people (law abiding or otherwise) have guns as they could mistakenly shoot innocent bystanders in an attempt to shoot a criminal.

That's a lot of 'ifs". Disarming a gun, even if an "experienced criminal," is nigh impossible if it's not in range of your arms and no person would try to pull out a gun if a criminal was less than an arms length away.

Also, if a criminal attacks, can the bystanders with guns potentially harm other bystanders, accidentally? Yes. However, I think that that risk compared to the criminal massacring everybody is a risk that is good to take.

"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."

At 12/18/2012 5:16:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:Also, if I'm really motivated and have a basic high school education, I could probably make my own (although rather crude) pistol. Are we going to ban metal now?

Hey. They didn't teach me to do that where I went.

I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

I believe this post is about a mother struggling with a child who has fits of rage and a mental process often called "self talk" where children and adults are in situations and come to crazy conclusions such as attacking a mom with sharp objects.

Her entire point is not so much that this is a gun control issue, but one of not having appropriate mental health care system. Imagine the only way you can get your son help is by pressing criminal charges and "creating a paper trail".

I have taken my son to psychologists for his rage issues, not as bad as this kid, but I walked away from it all as a system that is woefully inadequate.

It mirrors our health care system where one needs a doctor to diagnose high blood pressure and get meds, which completely ignoring the underlining reason.

I feel sorry for this woman, as it is a lonely road filled with helplessness she is on. I'm thankful my son is not as aggressive as her son is and mine seems to be growing out of it and gaining control. Ironically meditation did more for him than any $120/hr psychiatrist.

At 12/17/2012 12:41:24 PM, wrichcirw wrote:The first two paragraphs of the hyperlinked article:

Most parents in the U.S. have spent the past few days imagining what it would be like to be the mother or father of one of the 20 schoolchildren murdered on Dec. 14 in Connecticut. Each detail that emerges from that stricken community brings many of us to tears. And of course we think, What if a madman came to our child"s school in a rage with a gun?

But there"s another group of parents who watched this horror story unfold with an opposite and perhaps more excruciating thought: What if the madman were my child?

The mother of Lanza carries a large responsibility here - she is the person who bought THREE handguns, she is the person who described him as worrying and unreachable, she is the one who TAUGHT the wacko how to use the guns and she is the one who allowed him access to them.

At 12/17/2012 12:41:24 PM, wrichcirw wrote:The first two paragraphs of the hyperlinked article:

Most parents in the U.S. have spent the past few days imagining what it would be like to be the mother or father of one of the 20 schoolchildren murdered on Dec. 14 in Connecticut. Each detail that emerges from that stricken community brings many of us to tears. And of course we think, What if a madman came to our child"s school in a rage with a gun?

But there"s another group of parents who watched this horror story unfold with an opposite and perhaps more excruciating thought: What if the madman were my child?

The mother of Lanza carries a large responsibility here - she is the person who bought THREE handguns, she is the person who described him as worrying and unreachable, she is the one who TAUGHT the wacko how to use the guns and she is the one who allowed him access to them.

Harry.

Very good points.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

At 12/20/2012 10:31:29 AM, slo1 wrote:I believe this post is about a mother struggling with a child who has fits of rage and a mental process often called "self talk" where children and adults are in situations and come to crazy conclusions such as attacking a mom with sharp objects.

Her entire point is not so much that this is a gun control issue, but one of not having appropriate mental health care system. Imagine the only way you can get your son help is by pressing criminal charges and "creating a paper trail".

I have taken my son to psychologists for his rage issues, not as bad as this kid, but I walked away from it all as a system that is woefully inadequate.

It mirrors our health care system where one needs a doctor to diagnose high blood pressure and get meds, which completely ignoring the underlining reason.

I feel sorry for this woman, as it is a lonely road filled with helplessness she is on. I'm thankful my son is not as aggressive as her son is and mine seems to be growing out of it and gaining control. Ironically meditation did more for him than any $120/hr psychiatrist.

Thanks for your post about your personal experiences. I can't really add to your post except to say that it is most pertinent to the matter at hand.

That is interesting though that you would compare it to high blood pressure, as what would cause such a situation to develop would be the personal choices of the adult (eating steak, acting like Dick Cheney), whereas from what little I know about child mental health issues personal choice is an entirely foreign concept regarding the cause of the situation.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

At 12/17/2012 8:13:24 PM, Lordknukle wrote:Haven't we learned anything from the War on Drugs? The government is stupid. The police is stupid. The entire institution of society is stupid. If individuals want to get past rules, they will always be able to ("demand creates its own supply"). Restricting guns is as oxymoronic and not letting bullied kids get help from teachers. Criminals will be able to get guns if they want to, no matter how strict the laws (with extreme exceptions). The difference is whether you give guns to the law-abiding citizens to defend against these criminals.

So according to you, the war on drugs teaches us that the government can't regulate anything, so criminals should get to do what they want...

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

I don't think the government's stupid. A lot of them are really smart. I mean, they have a lot of power and money, and have a really nice, complicated legislative setup that confers more power and money, so...

At 12/17/2012 8:13:24 PM, Lordknukle wrote:Haven't we learned anything from the War on Drugs? The government is stupid. The police is stupid. The entire institution of society is stupid. If individuals want to get past rules, they will always be able to ("demand creates its own supply"). Restricting guns is as oxymoronic and not letting bullied kids get help from teachers. Criminals will be able to get guns if they want to, no matter how strict the laws (with extreme exceptions). The difference is whether you give guns to the law-abiding citizens to defend against these criminals.

So according to you, the war on drugs teaches us that the government can't regulate anything, so criminals should get to do what they want...

Totally non-sequitur. Let's take drug war as an example. First, if the government doesn't regulate it, then these "criminals" automatically don't become criminals, but instead people operating in the legal market. So your point is semantically self-defeating.

However, onto the actual substance (or lack thereof), if the government doesn't regulate drugs, then it will be a lot better for society. First of all, people will have a higher demand for more reputable sources of drugs, instead of dudes in hoodies at the corner of the street. The demand for street drugs will fall. Gangs, mafias, and cartels will collapse. People will be able to get higher quality drugs than before, because anybody who really wanted to get drugs could have easily gotten them when they were illegal. And more importantly, people will have the freedom to regulate what comes into their body.

"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."

At 12/17/2012 12:41:24 PM, wrichcirw wrote:The first two paragraphs of the hyperlinked article:

Most parents in the U.S. have spent the past few days imagining what it would be like to be the mother or father of one of the 20 schoolchildren murdered on Dec. 14 in Connecticut. Each detail that emerges from that stricken community brings many of us to tears. And of course we think, What if a madman came to our child"s school in a rage with a gun?

But there"s another group of parents who watched this horror story unfold with an opposite and perhaps more excruciating thought: What if the madman were my child?

Because your statement forms an axiomatic statement on your part, i.e. It is SO OBVIOUS that we should eliminate guns. When an axiom is formed on the part of a person, it is virtually impossible to eliminate, ration with, or try to logically eliminate. Although everybody has axioms, opinions are usually built upon axioms, not interchangeable terms. Hence, since your mind is closed and not open to logic and reason, you are fucktarded.

"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."

Because your statement forms an axiomatic statement on your part, i.e. It is SO OBVIOUS that we should eliminate guns. When an axiom is formed on the part of a person, it is virtually impossible to eliminate, ration with, or try to logically eliminate. Although everybody has axioms, opinions are usually built upon axioms, not interchangeable terms. Hence, since your mind is closed and not open to logic and reason, you are fucktarded.

Because your statement forms an axiomatic statement on your part, i.e. It is SO OBVIOUS that we should eliminate guns. When an axiom is formed on the part of a person, it is virtually impossible to eliminate, ration with, or try to logically eliminate. Although everybody has axioms, opinions are usually built upon axioms, not interchangeable terms. Hence, since your mind is closed and not open to logic and reason, you are fucktarded.

Wow. You got that from my little post? You're a genius.

Your sarcasm is cute.

"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."

At 12/17/2012 12:41:24 PM, wrichcirw wrote:The first two paragraphs of the hyperlinked article:

Most parents in the U.S. have spent the past few days imagining what it would be like to be the mother or father of one of the 20 schoolchildren murdered on Dec. 14 in Connecticut. Each detail that emerges from that stricken community brings many of us to tears. And of course we think, What if a madman came to our child"s school in a rage with a gun?

But there"s another group of parents who watched this horror story unfold with an opposite and perhaps more excruciating thought: What if the madman were my child?

From her point of view there is nothing to think about. She was shot through the head while she slept before any of the main shootings happened.

You need to read the article. The title yes, is "I Am Adam Lanza's Mother", but the subjects in the article have disturbed children LIKE Adam Lanza, with mothers who are frightened for them.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

Because your statement forms an axiomatic statement on your part, i.e. It is SO OBVIOUS that we should eliminate guns. When an axiom is formed on the part of a person, it is virtually impossible to eliminate, ration with, or try to logically eliminate. Although everybody has axioms, opinions are usually built upon axioms, not interchangeable terms. Hence, since your mind is closed and not open to logic and reason, you are fucktarded.

Wow. You got that from my little post? You're a genius.

Your sarcasm is cute.

It was a lot cuter than your original comment. Just saying.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?